Janet wrote:

> In future, perhaps people will just keep a sex robot by
> the bedside.

.... and hold its hand while walking in the streets? I saw a Japanese man
who had a sexrobot and made no secret of it. He would set it at the
table when he had a meal.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Janet wrote:

>> That discusses the murders in the context of warning about a
>> wider range of abuse.
>>
>> I don't know if the US has a lot fewer immigrants from those
>> cultures or if those problems have remained invisible for some
>> other reason.
>>
>> Considering the range of abuses, I'm sure we have SOME.
>> Well, they don't get discussed under that name.
>
> Honour based deaths in USA are probably invisible among
> the vast number of US homicides.

Just what I thought.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 27/04/24 22:24, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>
>> In future, perhaps people will just keep a sex robot by
>> the bedside.
>
> ... and hold its hand while walking in the streets? I saw a Japanese man
> who had a sexrobot and made no secret of it. He would set it at the
> table when he had a meal.

If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
overpopulation.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan wrote:

>> ... and hold its hand while walking in the streets? I saw a Japanese man
>> who had a sexrobot and made no secret of it. He would set it at the
>> table when he had a meal.
>
> If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
> overpopulation.

Or we might not. More than 10.5% of Danish babies born in 2019 were the
result of artificial insemination. But the Danish hospitals are
stressed, so maybe there will be a balance.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

occam wrote:

> On 25/04/2024 20:39, jerryfriedman wrote:
>> occam wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/04/2024 13:45, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:40:58 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 06:30, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>>>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>>>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does this square up with the 'The Assassination of John Lennon'
>>>>> (Book title, see elsethread).
>>>>
>>>> Did anything of his killer's motives come out at the trial that might
>>>> suggest that he was killed because of what he was rather than because
>>>> of who he was? Was he seen as representing something, or being a
>>>> symbol of something?
>>>>
>>>  He (the murderer) I believe was psychologically deranged and 'he heard
>>> voices inside his head' ...  . In a different time period, he would have
>>> been following God's command.
>>
>> There's nothing in Wikipedia about that,

> <smile> Do I need to spell it out Jerry?

Sure, it might be interesting.

> 1-

>> it does say that
>> when he pleaded guilty, he said that God wanted him to do so.

I'll mention that many Christians believe God wants people to confess
their misdeeds and do penance.

> 2-

>> his
>> motive hasn't been very consistent-

> 3-

>> wanting to be notorious,

> 4- anger at him [Lennon] for saying the Beatles were bigger than Jesus

> 5-
>> for singing "Imagine no possessions" while living in luxury.

> QED </smile>

I missed all the steps of the proof.

--
Jerry Friedman

Janet wrote:

> In article <v0eato$3600a$1@dont-email.me>,
> gadekryds@lundhansen.dk says...
>>
>> Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>
>> > That reminds me, I saw a film set in the Near East in which
>> > the plot involved an "honor killing."
>>
>> Honor killing has taken place in Denmark. In 2005 an 18-year old girl
>> was killed (shot 6 times) by her brother. Her 'crime' was that she had
>> married a boy of Danish ethnicity. The brother shot the boyfriend too,
>> but he survived.
>>
>> Two family members and two friends of the family were percecuted and
>> convicted, but actually more family members were behind the action, the
>> mother for one. The father got life because he was the prime person
>> behind the killing. The brother got 16 years which normally is the
>> longest penalty in Denmark for murder.
>>
>> The family was based in Copenhagen (I think), but the couple was traced
>> to Slagelse where the killing took place.
>>
>> The case shocked the whole country. We hope that the trial will make
>> people think twice.
>>
>> There is only one previous similar case. I don't know when that
>> happened.

> There are 10 to 15 "honour based" killings a year in
> UK.

> https://safeguardinghub.co.uk/honour-based-abuse-the-
> facts/

For a culturally limited definition of honor. A killing over an
insult is also honor-based, and that's also known to happen in the
UK, as well as the U.S. and other places.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-48278265

--
Jerry Friedman

On 2024-04-21, Janet wrote:

> In article <l8ihapF27bgU1@mid.individual.net>,
> me@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> This week I learned the difference in French between "meurtre" et
>> "assassinat": "meurtre" is any old homicide; "assassinat" is
>> premeditated murder, i.e. intentional murder. It seems to me in in
>> English "murder" and "assassination" don't differ in the same way: if
>> you kill your your next-door neighbour then that's a murder, but if you
>> kill a well-known public figure, such the Prime Minister, then that's
>> an assassination. In other words the difference related to the identity
>> of the victim rather than to the intent to kill. Am I right? Is that
>> how others see the difference between murder and assassination?
>
> If I intentionally kill someone that's murder.
>
> If I hire a professional hitman to do the job, it's
> still murder.

"Shoe" cartoon:

<https://www.gocomics.com/shoe/2024/04/27>

--
Unit tests are like the boy who cried wolf.

On 26/04/2024 16:07, jerryfriedman wrote:
>
>> If you want to be pernickety (AmE persnickety) about it, insert
>> "unlawful and" before "intentional".
>
> I do want to be persnickety.  This is a.u.e.

The 'a' of a.u.e. does not stand for 'american', does it ? </smile>

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 13:10:34 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>In article <6bbo2j5niopkf5ppldvg1i5qb30dbieges@4ax.com>,
>rich.ulrich@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:10:17 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>>

>> > There are 10 to 15 "honour based" killings a year in
>> >UK.
>> >
>> > https://safeguardinghub.co.uk/honour-based-abuse-the-
>> >facts/
>> >
>>
>> That discusses the murders in the context of warning about a
>> wider range of abuse.
>>
>> I don't know if the US has a lot fewer immigrants from those
>> cultures or if those problems have remained invisible for some
>> other reason.
>>
>> Considering the range of abuses, I'm sure we have SOME.
>> Well, they don't get discussed under that name.
>
> Honour based deaths in USA are probably invisible among
>the vast number of US homicides.
>

Excellent point!

I feel a bit bad for overlooking it. Being inured to it.

We worried more about our exceptional homicide rate
before we started worrying about the mass killings.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 08:02:15 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
wrote:

>msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>> Steve Hayes:
>>>> "Assassination" is murder for a particular reason, relating to the
>>>> office a person holds. To be assassinated is to be killed in one's
>>>> official capacity rather than in one's personal capacity.
>>
>> Garrett Wollman:
>>> I'd make a similar distinction with "execution". An execution is
>>> murder authorized by a state; by definition, non-state actors cannot
>>> execute people.
>>
>> No, you're attempting to make a political point. Murder involves
>> *unlawful* and intentional killing. So by definition, an action
>> "authorized by a state" cannot be murder.
>
>Can you not imagine a situation where more than one state's view on
>an event may be relevant, and that plurality of views do not align?
>

Trump's drone strike that killed Suliamani has a Wiki entry,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani#Legality

It feels like an assassination to me, more than an execution.
"Murder" seems like an over-simplification, but might apply.

International courts have rejected Iran's complaints, citing
long-standing technicalies based (I take it) on practical politics.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 27-Apr-24 13:06, Janet wrote:
> In article <l93nkoFkglhU1@mid.individual.net>,
> occam@nowhere.nix says...
>>
>> On 26/04/2024 20:51, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 26-Apr-24 8:40, occam wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2024 01:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:45:09 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You claim that street corner loitering with intent offends the
>>>>> sensibilities of Europeans, but it's OK if the woman loiters in the
>>>>> window in the European countries of the Netherlands and Belgium?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the "where" they're doing it, not "what" they're doing?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neither. It's the "how". When soliciting is done via 'shop windows'
>>>> these professionals are accountable. Health checks, and taxes - to
>>>> mention just two criteria.
>>>>
>>>> As for the "what", there is no getting away from the oldest profession.
>>>>
>>>> On a lighter note, I understand that modern sex robots are making great
>>>> strides towards replacing the human professional.
>>>>
>>> Great Strides??
>>> That's a new on on me.
>>>
>>
>> You should keep a dictionary by your bedside.
>>
>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/make-great-strides
>
> In future, perhaps people will just keep a sex robot by
> the bedside.

Until someone develops a bed with a built-in sex robot?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27-Apr-24 8:26, occam wrote:
> On 26/04/2024 20:51, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 26-Apr-24 8:40, occam wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2024 01:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 18:45:09 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You claim that street corner loitering with intent offends the
>>>> sensibilities of Europeans, but it's OK if the woman loiters in the
>>>> window in the European countries of the Netherlands and Belgium?
>>>>
>>>> It's the "where" they're doing it, not "what" they're doing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Neither. It's the "how". When soliciting is done via 'shop windows'
>>> these professionals are accountable. Health checks, and taxes - to
>>> mention just two criteria.
>>>
>>> As for the "what", there is no getting away from the oldest profession.
>>>
>>> On a lighter note, I understand that modern sex robots are making great
>>> strides towards replacing the human professional.
>>>
>> Great Strides??
>> That's a new on on me.
>>
>
> You should keep a dictionary by your bedside.
>
> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/make-great-strides

Oh I know the idiom, it's the eponymous sexual perversion I'm not
familiar with.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27-Apr-24 13:03, Janet wrote:
> In article <HISWN.377$JxS3.120@fx10.ams1>, not@home.com
> says...
>> Subject: Re: Murder and assassination
>> From: Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>>
>> On 26-Apr-24 8:40, occam wrote:> > On a lighter note, I
> understand that modern sex robots are making great
>>> strides towards replacing the human professional.
>
>
>> Great Strides??
>
> "Large trousers" ??
>
>> That's a new one on me.
>
> Bad news for incels, or any chaps of limited prowess in
> the trouser department/bedroom.

Any mention of The Trouser Department inevitably brings up memories of
"Are You Being Served".

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27-Apr-24 13:08, Janet wrote:
> In article <HPSWN.378$JxS3.81@fx10.ams1>, not@home.com
> says...
>> Subject: Re: Murder and assassination
>> From: Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>>
>> On 26-Apr-24 14:45, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>> Only the initial setting, with the OAS attempting to kill the Gaulle
>>> actually happened.
>>>
>>> You may as well consult 'Allo 'Allo
>>> for information about the French Resistance.
>>
>> ??
>> In responding to Occam's "characters are assassinated"
>> I was referring to a character (in a book - later a film) who was
>> (almost) assassinated.
>>
>> Some people do care very much about spoilers that might ruin a thriller
>> for them.
>>
>> After all, no-one would go to see "The Scottish Play" if they already
>> knew that M****** dies in the final act.
>
> "Don't tell 'em, Pike"

I probably didn't need that last sentence. Most people's final act is
to die.

<Space reserved for discussion of Wills.>

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024, at 22:35:51, Peter Moylan posted:
>On 27/04/24 22:24, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Janet wrote:
>>
>>> In future, perhaps people will just keep a sex robot by
>>> the bedside.
>>
>> ... and hold its hand while walking in the streets? I saw a Japanese man
>> who had a sexrobot and made no secret of it. He would set it at the
>> table when he had a meal.
>
>If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
>overpopulation.
>
That's an interesting word. It looks inherently question-begging, what
with the inbuilt presumption of "over-". Modern societies seem to be
solving it all by themselves - I think South Korea is the extreme case:

https://time.com/6835865/south-korea-fertility-rate-2023-record-low/
--
Paul W

On 28/04/24 03:03, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> We worried more about our exceptional homicide rate before we started
> worrying about the mass killings.

We've had a recent case where an Orthodox Christian bishop and a priest
were stabbed during a live-streamed church service. Initially we were
told that the attacker believed that the bishop had insulted his
religion, but that detail has since dropped out of the news. The police
have called the attack religiously motivated terrorism.

Some members of the Islamic community have called for dropping the term
"religiously motivated terrorism", saying that it should instead be
called politically motivated.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Paul Wolff wrote:

>>If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
>>overpopulation.
>>
> That's an interesting word. It looks inherently question-begging, what
> with the inbuilt presumption of "over-".

I think of it as the limit of people that the Earth can sustain, but
where food and space are concerned.

> Modern societies seem to be
> solving it all by themselves - I think South Korea is the extreme case:

Try "modern, rich societies".

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 27/04/2024 15:23, jerryfriedman wrote:
> occam wrote:
>

>>>>>
>>>>  He (John Lennon's murderer) I believe was psychologically deranged and 'he heard
>>>> voices inside his head' ...  . In a different time period, he would
>>>> have
>>>> been following God's command.
>>>
>>> There's nothing in Wikipedia about that,
>
>> <smile> Do I need to spell it out Jerry?
>
> Sure, it might be interesting.
>
>> 1-
>
>>> it does say that
>>> when he pleaded guilty, he said that God wanted him to do so.
>
> I'll mention that many Christians believe God wants people to confess
> their misdeeds and do penance.
>
>> 2-
>
>>>  his
>>> motive hasn't been very consistent-
>
>
>> 3-
>
>>> wanting to be notorious,
>
>
>> 4-  anger at him [Lennon] for saying the Beatles were bigger than Jesus
>
>> 5-
>>> for singing "Imagine no possessions" while living in luxury.
>
>> QED </smile>
>
> I missed all the steps of the proof.
>

In such cases, of course, there can be no such thing as 'proof'.

If, however, your Honour would permit me, I'd like to present some
additional information I have harvested from Wiki page of Mark David
Chapman:

1- "Chapman began to fantasize about having God-like power over a group
of imaginary "little people" who lived in the walls of his bedroom."

2- "Following the murder, Chapman's legal team intended to mount an
insanity defense based on the testimony of mental health experts who
said that he was in a delusional psychotic state at the time of the
shooting." (Chapman rejected this approach. Proof, if proof was ever
needed, that he was insane. Do you know of any insane people who would
admit to being insane?)

3- "He was sentenced to a prison term of twenty years to life with a
stipulation that mental health treatment would be provided. "

4- "In 1977, Chapman relocated to Hawaii, where he attempted suicide by
carbon monoxide asphyxiation. He connected a hose to his car's exhaust
pipe, but the hose melted and the attempt failed. "

(more available, subject to requests.)

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024, at 09:52:34, Bertel Lund Hansen posted:
>Paul Wolff wrote:
>
>>>If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
>>>overpopulation.
>>>
>> That's an interesting word. It looks inherently question-begging, what
>> with the inbuilt presumption of "over-".
>
>I think of it as the limit of people that the Earth can sustain, but
>where food and space are concerned.

There are fewer starving people on the planet now than in the fairly
recent past, even though the world population continues to grow. If we
stopped choosing to fight each other, there's be even fewer starving.
>
>> Modern societies seem to be
>> solving it all by themselves - I think South Korea is the extreme case:
>
>Try "modern, rich societies".
>
I suppose I presumed that a properly modern society would also be rich.
--
Paul W

Paul Wolff wrote:

>>> Modern societies seem to be
>>> solving it all by themselves - I think South Korea is the extreme case:
>>
>>Try "modern, rich societies".
>>
> I suppose I presumed that a properly modern society would also be rich.

I believe that "modern times" covers the whole world.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:52:34 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

>Paul Wolff wrote:
>
>>>If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
>>>overpopulation.
>>>
>> That's an interesting word. It looks inherently question-begging, what
>> with the inbuilt presumption of "over-".
>
>I think of it as the limit of people that the Earth can sustain, but
>where food and space are concerned.

If you think about it, don't "limit" and "survive" describe a
crass outcome? What is the virtue of having the most possible
people? Are we trying to meet the challenge of having so
many people that some neighboring planet will not invade
and overrun us?

I never could remember what science fiction story or book it
was, that introduced the idea of a far future earth that had
settled on an ideal total population of some odd number like
108,400 -- enough, they claimed, to furnish all the needed
professions and arts. IIRC, it wasn't a main feature of the
book like, maybe it was something observed by a time traveler.

That version of an ideal has affected my thoughts about
"over-population" ever since.

>
>> Modern societies seem to be
>> solving it all by themselves - I think South Korea is the extreme case:
>
>Try "modern, rich societies".

It was a pretty big surprise to demographers, oh, 50 years
ago, when they realized that ppoulation growth rates were
plummeting all around the earth, once 'survival' seemed to
be assured. Just by individual choice when birth control
became available.

China, of course, set another sort of example, where the
state insisted one-family, one-child; and set the conditions for
their remarkable growth since then.

--
Rich Ulrich

occam wrote:

> On 27/04/2024 15:23, jerryfriedman wrote:
>> occam wrote:
>>

>>>>>>
>>>>>  He (John Lennon's murderer) I believe was psychologically deranged and 'he heard
>>>>> voices inside his head' ...  . In a different time period, he would
>>>>> have
>>>>> been following God's command.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing in Wikipedia about that,
>>
>>> <smile> Do I need to spell it out Jerry?
>>
>> Sure, it might be interesting.
>>
>>> 1-
>>
>>>> it does say that
>>>> when he pleaded guilty, he said that God wanted him to do so.
>>
>> I'll mention that many Christians believe God wants people to confess
>> their misdeeds and do penance.
>>
>>> 2-
>>
>>>>  his
>>>> motive hasn't been very consistent-
>>
>>
>>> 3-
>>
>>>> wanting to be notorious,
>>
>>
>>> 4-  anger at him [Lennon] for saying the Beatles were bigger than Jesus
>>
>>> 5-
>>>> for singing "Imagine no possessions" while living in luxury.
>>
>>> QED </smile>
>>
>> I missed all the steps of the proof.
>>

> In such cases, of course, there can be no such thing as 'proof'.

> If, however, your Honour would permit me, I'd like to present some
> additional information I have harvested from Wiki page of Mark David
> Chapman:

> 1- "Chapman began to fantasize about having God-like power over a group
> of imaginary "little people" who lived in the walls of his bedroom."

When he was a boy.

> 2- "Following the murder, Chapman's legal team intended to mount an
> insanity defense based on the testimony of mental health experts who
> said that he was in a delusional psychotic state at the time of the
> shooting." (Chapman rejected this approach. Proof, if proof was ever
> needed, that he was insane. Do you know of any insane people who would
> admit to being insane?)

> 3- "He was sentenced to a prison term of twenty years to life with a
> stipulation that mental health treatment would be provided. "

> 4- "In 1977, Chapman relocated to Hawaii, where he attempted suicide by
> carbon monoxide asphyxiation. He connected a hose to his car's exhaust
> pipe, but the hose melted and the attempt failed. "

> (more available, subject to requests.)

I agree that he was in very bad mental shape at various times in his
life. Whether he was legally insane, incompetent to stand trial, I
couldn't say. But there's nothing that says he heard voices in his
head at all, much less that he acted at their command.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024, at 09:42:46, Rich Ulrich posted:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:52:34 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
><gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>>Paul Wolff wrote:
>>
>>>>If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
>>>>overpopulation.
>>>>
>>> That's an interesting word. It looks inherently question-begging, what
>>> with the inbuilt presumption of "over-".
>>
>>I think of it as the limit of people that the Earth can sustain, but
>>where food and space are concerned.
>
>If you think about it, don't "limit" and "survive" describe a
>crass outcome? What is the virtue of having the most possible
>people? Are we trying to meet the challenge of having so
>many people that some neighboring planet will not invade
>and overrun us?
>
>I never could remember what science fiction story or book it
>was, that introduced the idea of a far future earth that had
>settled on an ideal total population of some odd number like
>108,400 -- enough, they claimed, to furnish all the needed
>professions and arts. IIRC, it wasn't a main feature of the
>book like, maybe it was something observed by a time traveler.
>
>That version of an ideal has affected my thoughts about
>"over-population" ever since.
>
>>
>>> Modern societies seem to be
>>> solving it all by themselves - I think South Korea is the extreme case:
>>
>>Try "modern, rich societies".
>
>It was a pretty big surprise to demographers, oh, 50 years
>ago, when they realized that ppoulation growth rates were
>plummeting all around the earth, once 'survival' seemed to
>be assured. Just by individual choice when birth control
>became available.
>
>China, of course, set another sort of example, where the
>state insisted one-family, one-child; and set the conditions for
>their remarkable growth since then.
>
China is still a work in progress. It's a country with a tradition of
central control not yet tempered by the rise in individual autonomy that
began to develop in Europe hundreds of years ago. Now Chinese factories
empty as production is off-shored. I've no crystal ball there.
--
Paul W

Rich Ulrich wrote:

>>>>If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
>>>>overpopulation.
>>>>
>>> That's an interesting word. It looks inherently question-begging, what
>>> with the inbuilt presumption of "over-".
>>
>>I think of it as the limit of people that the Earth can sustain, but
>>where food and space are concerned.
>
> If you think about it, don't "limit" and "survive" describe a
> crass outcome? What is the virtue of having the most possible
> people? Are we trying to meet the challenge of having so
> many people that some neighboring planet will not invade
> and overrun us?

No. I haven't ventured any statement about that. I just explained what
the word "overpopulation" means to me.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 28-Apr-24 14:42, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:52:34 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>
>>>> If such trends are encouraged, we might finally have a solution to
>>>> overpopulation.
>>>>
>>> That's an interesting word. It looks inherently question-begging, what
>>> with the inbuilt presumption of "over-".
>>
>> I think of it as the limit of people that the Earth can sustain, but
>> where food and space are concerned.
>
> If you think about it, don't "limit" and "survive" describe a
> crass outcome? What is the virtue of having the most possible
> people? Are we trying to meet the challenge of having so
> many people that some neighboring planet will not invade
> and overrun us?
>
> I never could remember what science fiction story or book it
> was, that introduced the idea of a far future earth that had
> settled on an ideal total population of some odd number like
> 108,400 -- enough, they claimed, to furnish all the needed
> professions and arts. IIRC, it wasn't a main feature of the
> book like, maybe it was something observed by a time traveler.
>
> That version of an ideal has affected my thoughts about
> "over-population" ever since.
>
>>
>>> Modern societies seem to be
>>> solving it all by themselves - I think South Korea is the extreme case:
>>
>> Try "modern, rich societies".
>
> It was a pretty big surprise to demographers, oh, 50 years
> ago, when they realized that ppoulation growth rates were
> plummeting all around the earth, once 'survival' seemed to
> be assured. Just by individual choice when birth control
> became available.
>
> China, of course, set another sort of example, where the
> state insisted one-family, one-child; and set the conditions for
> their remarkable growth since then.
>
Countries with top-heavy demographics might be on the way to 'solving'
overpopulation.
However, having great numbers of elderly people, with few young & active
people to keep the economy going, is not a recipe for success.

If the economy then collapses, does the resulting lack of stability and
security mean family sizes start growing again?

--
Sam Plusnet